Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2014-03-08 (March 8, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

###################################################

Quote of the Week: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” Albert Einstein [H/t ICECAP] Number of the Week: 17% & 11%

Challenging the Orthodoxy: Two major papers came out, severely questioning and contradicting the latest work of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), especially the Summary for Policymakers.

One paper “Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity for Use in Regulatory Decisions’, was produced by The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team – “a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” They put their distinguished reputations on the line in performing this volunteer work, without compensation from government, private interests, etc. This paper will be discussed below.

The second paper is “A Sensitive Matter: How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming” by Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok with a foreword by Judith Curry. It was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The paper details the enormous disconnect between the Summary for Policymakers and the Scientific Report (WGI) in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The summary is alarmist, but the scientific report does not justify alarm. This paper will be discussed next week. Patrick Michaels and “Chip” Knappenberger had a two articles discussing the Lewis & Crok report, emphasizing that the IPCC exaggerated the influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) on temperatures; without such exaggeration there would be little cause for alarm about global warming/climate change. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

TRCS: As discussed in the October 5, 2013 TWTW, the IPCC scientific report and summary had many weaknesses, not the least of which was exposed by Nir Shaviv. On his web site, Shaviv produced what he called the most boring graph he ever plotted. Starting with the 1979 Charney report, supported by the US National Research Council, “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” to a doubling of CO2 remained at 1.5 to 4.5°C, except for a slight narrowing of 2 to 4.5°C in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007). AR5 contained the more traditional estimate of 1.5 to 4.5°C. It is incredible that after 35 years of research and tens of billions of dollars spent, the Climate Establishment has not been able to improve on the estimates in the 1979 Charney report.

The current TRCS report contains an analysis of the upper bound, the worst-case scenario, of a temperature increase by 2100, without any regulatory limit on fossil fuel use. The Climate Establishment should have done this decades ago.

The TRCS team analysis is data driven, not model driven. They chose the Hadley Center – Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU4) surface data that goes back to 1850. The satellite data, independently confirmed by weather balloons, is better, but it starts in December 1978, too short for the purpose. The data reveal an approximately 62-year cycle, peaking about 2013. The causes of the cycle are not clear. According to its summary, IPCC estimates are based on warming since 1950, thereby fail to account for this cycle.

The critical estimate of maximum temperature increase by 2100 is 1°C above today’s temperatures, or about 1.8°C increase since 1850, well below the contrived 2°C that IPCC supporters and some politicians claim must be prevented. In short, the demand for drastic, economically destructive emissions controls is not justified. Also, the overall warming trend may be in part due to a rebound from the Little Ice Age, and the total warming to 2100 may be significantly less than 1°C. The 1850 atmospheric CO2 concentration was about that of the pre-industrial concentrations of about 280 parts per million (ppm).

The TRCS team asserts that the IPCC and its followers, calculate the wrong metric, standard of measurement. The team uses transient climate sensitivity (the effect of current atmospheric CO2). The IPCC and its followers use equilibrium climate sensitivity and fail to account for the absorption of CO2 by the biosphere, which is clearly shown by satellite photos over the past three decades.

The TRCS team report contains an extensive discussion on the calculation of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and why the team believes that the current calculations should not be used as a justification for government policies. Further, drawing on their experience from intense, independent examination following the Challenger and Discovery disasters, the team calls for the formation of an independent and objective scientific review board to review the methodologies being used to calculate SCC.

Some may disagree with timing of maximum use of fossil fuels before market-driven transitioning to alternative energy sources. However, that is minor compared with the rigorous effort of trying to put an upper bound on the potential warming from fossil fuel use and associated CO2 emissions. The analysis clearly shows that we have more than sufficient time to get the science of climate change right and that we should not be panicked into adopting dangerous and economically destructive policies.

Why the Climate Establishment has failed to perform such a desperately needed analysis was, perhaps, best answered by Nir Shaviv. “If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better… However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases.”

Arctic Ice Melt: There is little question that the Arctic has been warming for the past three decades. Based on satellite observations, that is the only major region of the earth that has had pronounced warming. An examination of a collection of 27 high-quality proxy data shows that the temperatures of the Atlantic portion of the Arctic may have been as warm or warmer during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.

Another study suggests that the greater inflow of warmer water from the rivers in the Arctic may be responsible for the late summer ice melt that has been observed in recent years, 2013 excluded. See links under Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC, Changing Cryosphere http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2012/november/trend_Dec78_Nov12_alt.png.

**************

Uncertainty: In Climate Etc., Judith Curry posted her power-point presentation used during her talk “Causes and implications of the pause” at a workshop by American Physical Society, the purpose of which was to explore changing the APS climate change statement. The slides include those showing the significant divergence between model projections and observations. She explores some of the explanations for this divergence. The summary of the major uncertainties is particularly useful, especially the unknowns. If the leadership of APS performed the same analysis as the TRCS team did, the APS climate change statement would be radically altered. See link under Seeking a Common Ground.

**************

Extreme Weather: Last week Secretary of State John Kerry told students and government officials of Indonesia that climate change is a weapon of mass destruction and Indonesia should not use its resources in fostering economic growth. Further, he and President Obama do not have time to talk to global warming skeptics, calling their science shoddy

Not to be outdone, the president’s science advisor, John Holdren attacked Roger Pielke Jr. for his testimony to Congress that climate change has not increased extreme weather. Pielke directly rebutted Holdren’s claims in a letter, in his posts, and in an article he wrote. Further Pielke is a co-author of a new paper based on the financial records of the large re-insurance entity, Munich Re. The bottom line here is that a signal of greenhouse gas emissions cannot be found in the aggregate loss data from Munich Re.

As if to buttress Pielke’s findings, Warren Buffett, whose holding company owns a large insurance company, stated in an interview: “The public has the impression that because there’s been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual,” he continued. “The answer is they haven’t.” “I love apocalyptic predictions” on climate change, Buffett told CNBC on Monday, because they probably do affect rates.

Further, as if to counter the wealthy John Kerry, Pielke has an article on “What Does It Mean to be Anti-Growth?” The reality is that to be anti-growth today is actually to be anti-growth with respect to poor countries…. . So when you encounter an anti-growth advocate, ask him or her, which kind are you, Neo-Malthusian, Peak Earther, or Luddite? See links under Changing Weather and Environmental Industry.

**************

Defense Review: Every four years the US Department of Defense produces its Quadrennial Defense Review. The Chapter on Future Security Environment has an extensive paragraph on the dangers of global warming/climate change: “The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.” The chapter does not mention the possibility of Russia seizing military control of a portion of a European country as it did by seizing control of the Crimea in the Ukraine. See links under Expanding the Orthodoxy.

**************

US Energy: Some commentators have suggested that President Obama use the new-found US energy prowess to counter Russian influence over the Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Many of these commentators seem to have little understanding of the long time-frame involved and the costs of transporting liquefied natural gas, a frequently mentioned fuel. Use of fossil fuels would be contrary to the observed policy of the Administration of suppressing the use of fossil fuels. If Obama did as the commentators suggest, would Security of State Kerry accuse the President of using a weapon of mass destruction? See links under Energy Issues – US.

**************

The Grid Experiment: The North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the California Independent System Operation Corporation have produced a report on issues faced by grid operators when politicians insist that unreliable wind and solar be integrated into the electrical grid. The load must be balanced, or the grid will fail. The operating characteristics of VERs [variable energy resources] —not just the energy or capacity being provided—will fundamentally change the basic composition of essential reliability services. The system must continue to work reliably. California may become a very expensive test site. See link under California Dreaming.

**************

Market Crash: Christopher Monckton has an amusing post on the difference in stock index value of $100 placed in 2002 in “clean” green stocks as compared with “dirty” oil and gas stocks. See link under Energy Issues – Non-US.

**************

Un-Validated Models: TWTW has been criticized for its negative view of using climate models, which have not been validated, to make predictions far into the future. The negative view is not limited to climate models. For example, some members of SEPP were less than impressed when the White House declared that, based on its models, the “Stimulus Bill” would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and it would quickly go down to 6% and soon go as low as 5%. Without the bill, unemployment would reach 9%. The bill was passed, and unemployment went to 10%. After five years of expansionary fiscal and monetary policy, the unemployment rate fell slowly to a rate of 6.7%, in February, 2014. The less formal U6 unemployment rate, which includes those who seek full-time jobs, but can only find part-time jobs, and those who left the work force, stands at 12.6%, which is higher than any value prior to the “Stimulus Bill.” The calculations start in 1994.

There is clearly something wrong the models. One of the major issues is the value of what is called the multiplier. What is the impact of additional government spending? The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the multiplier may range from 0.5 to 2.5. At 0.5, $100 additional spent by government would have a total economic impact of $50, or one-half of the moneys spent. Clearly the failure to validate models has significant consequences. See links under Model Issues.

**************

Number of the Week: 17% and 11%. A study by the Breakthrough Institute reports that for 2012, the total energy output of German wind farms was 17% of nameplate capacity (the frequently touted number used by wind promoters). According to the report, the figures come from Germany’s BdeW utility consortium, which gathers data from all electric utilities. The links are in German. The output for solar for 2012 was 11% of nameplate capacity. If the numbers are correct, then the US EIA should re-visit its estimate of a 34% production capacity for wind. [Note: TWTW does not agree with the report’s claims of adverse health effects of fossil fuels, as they apply to westernized nations using modern power plants.]

###################################################

ARTICLES:

For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

1. At Energy Confab, Oil Chiefs Fret Over Costs

An Industry That Once Worried About Supply Now Finds Rising Production Costs a Concern

Furthermore, the ebbs and flows of other glaciers in tropical South America are similar to the Qori Kalis extents, indicating a regionally consistent pattern of past climate conditions. On a global scale, the results suggest that glaciers were larger than present and depositing moraines in both northern and southern hemispheres at about the same time, indicating that the climate mechanisms which caused the late Holocene cooling likely influenced a globally synchronous pattern of cooling.

Homeowners who install a geothermal system prior to Dec. 31, 2016, can take advantage of a federal renewable energy tax credit that offers a tax incentive of 30 percent of the installed cost of the system. This credit can be used in combination with utility rebates and state tax incentives, where available, to make geothermal systems more affordable than ever.

Magma says:
March 9, 2014 at 9:43 pm (complaining)
Leading off with a quote about stupidity incorrectly attributed to Einstein?
How appropriate.

Not worth your effort complaining about, and probably definitely not worth looking it up

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.
Variants: Only two things are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind, and I’m not sure about the former.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.
Earliest references on google books seem to be two 1969 books by Frederick S. Perls, the founder of gestalt therapy. In one, Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, he claims to have heard it from Einstein, writing ‘As Albert Einstein once said to me: “Two things are infinite: the universe and the human stupidity.”‘ In another book, “Ego, Hunger, and Aggression: the Beginning of Gestalt Therapy” he attributes it to “a great astronomer” and then refers to Einstein separately in the next sentence: ‘it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things are infinite, as far as we know — the universe and human stupidity.” To-day we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited.’ So it’s not clear whether in this second quote he’s implying that Einstein was the astronomer who said the first thing but then later revised his opinion about the size of the universe (an idea Einstein was suggesting at least as far back as 1920, see here, though he never actually “proved” it, or if in this quote he’s imagining the astronomer as a separate person, and the two quotes are just inconsistent (whether because he wanted to attribute the quote to someone important-sounding, or because he just remembered it differently in the two books). Also, it says here that Ego, Hunger, and Aggression was originally published in 1942, though the version on google books is from 1969, so it might be a later edition and I don’t know if the quote about the astronomer and human stupidity was in the original or if it was added in a later revision (“The Quote Investigator” seems to say here that it was in a 1940s version, I guess either 1942 or the second edition in 1947). Anyway, seems pretty dubious to me. Hypnosifl 04:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, it may be unrelated, but in the 1920 book “My Second Country” by Robert Dell, on page 276 I found a somewhat similar quote: “Renan said that the only thing that gave him any conception of infinity was human stupidity”. And if you search google books for keywords “Renan”, “infinity”, and “stupidity” you find others, including this one from 1915 which is even closer to the one Perls attributes to “a great astronomer”–in this case, the quote is “He quotes the saying of Renan: it isn’t the stars that give him an idea of infinity; it is man’s stupidity.” Ernest Renan was not an astronomer, but he was a philosopher who apparently had an interest in the idea of an infinite universe, see p. 204 of ‘Life of Ernest Renan’ from 1895 (search google books for “Ernest Renan infinity” for more). According to this page the original French version was “La bêtise humaine est la seule chose qui donne une idée de l’infini” and it comes from “Dialogues et fragments philosophiques”, though when I searched the text for the word “humaine” I couldn’t find the quote there. I suppose it’s possible the quote was misattributed to Renan before it was misattributed to Einstein; searching google books for “bêtise humaine” and “l’infini”, some attribute it to Voltaire…and this 1904 book gives a different version on p. 465, “Ce n’est pas l’immensité de la vôute étoilée qui peut donner le plus complétement l’ideé de l’infini, mais bien la bêtise humaine!” which translates roughly to “it is not the starry sky that can give the most complete idea of the infinite, but human stupidity!” which sounds a lot like the Einstein quote and is from before Einstein was famous…this 1903 book also gives the same quote at the bottom of p. 19. Meanwhile the book “Des vers” by Guy de Maupassant, which says on p. 9 that it’s from 1880, also has a quote from a letter by Gustav Flaubert on p. 21, “Cependant, qui sait? La terre a des limites, mais la bêtise humaine est infinie!” which translates to “But who knows? The earth has its boundaries, but human stupidity is infinite!” It may just be an old cliché rather than something Flaubert invented, this page which is also dated 1880 but is from a different author says something similar (“Aujourd’hui je sais qu’il n’y a pas de limites à la bêtise humaine, qu’elle est infinie” or “today I know that there is no limit to human stupidity, it is infinite”). Anyway, regardless of whether Renan said a quote like this, do you folks think this is enough to put it in the “misattributed” section, or at least “disputed”? Hypnosifl 07:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This manner of speaking strikes me as very uncharacteristic of Einstein, but it might be included in the Misattributed section if it is widely attributed in sources that might reasonably be considered reliable. I am not enthusiastic about listing everything that circulates on the web or mostly appears in unreliable sources, particularly for someone like Einstein to whom practically everything has been attributed sometime by somebody. ~ Ningauble 13:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Following on from the excellent question posed last week.
Something to put to every politician supporting a tax on the production of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is;
“Given the intention is to reduce global temperatures, at what point in the reduction or cessation of AGW, and by what measurement metric or metrics, will you deem the tax to have “worked” and is therefore no longer required?”

There was a 6.9 quake off the coast of Ferndale, California a little over an hour ago. Seven aftershocks so far. That is a good size event. The Gorda Plate is overdue for it,s big one, which can potentially unleash a tsunami. This is one to watch short term.

sounds like the 200+ scientists have decided on their answer by their framing of the question?
AUDIO: 10 Mar: ABC Australia: The World Today: International sea ice conference in Hobart
ELEANOR HALL: More than 200 scientists from around the world are spending this week in Hobart investigating why sea ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are responding differently to the warming of the planet…
FELICITY OGILVIE: The conference is about sea ice in a changing environment. If you’re saying that the changes in sea ice are due to climate change, why then would ice be increasing in Antarctica?
IAN SIMMONDS: There’s a number of reasons and again, we’re still coming to grips with what the total picture is in terms of the Antarctic. But in the Antarctic there are regions of sea ice which are rapidly decreasing in the so-called Bellingshausen Sea, which is near the Antarctic Peninsula. There’s a rapid decrease in sea ice there.
But in other parts of the continent around the coast, there’s dramatic increases. And when you take all those together, you get an actual total increase in the amount of sea ice…
IAN SIMMONDS: Now, there are features which are referred to in our business as “teleconnections,” which means if you impact on one part of the climate system, you’ll see a response in a remote location…http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3960138.htm

the public reaction “i don’t have time to read all that but i did see a documentary by people who got a nobel prize so warming must be true”.
for society penetration an easily digestible documentary that granny can watch is worth 1000 papers

“Changes in the sun’s energy output may have led to marked natural climate change in Europe over the last 1000 years, according to researchers at Cardiff University.”….http://phys.org/news/2014-03-sun-energy-years-natural-climate.html#jCp…
.of course to get it published they had to say modern man made co2 warming would trump any solar effects. Which will become a problem for them the longer they cannot prove co2 is the main driver of climate during the current ‘evidence divergence’ …the article also shows if u remove co2 bias from the models they actually work and match the recorded data? Miracle huh?

Whitehouse to lead 28 colleagues in marathon soliloquy on global warming
Whitehouse said, he can’t avoid the impacts.
“The oceans are a very powerful witness of climate change because the changes there are so easy to measure,” he said. “It’s hard to work mischief about 10 inches of higher sea level at the Newport sea gauge.”http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140310-whitehouse-to-lead-28-colleagues-in-marathon-soliloquy-on-global-warming.ece
suppose not if you neglect to point out the sea levels have fallen at other tide gauges and that the original tide gauges were placed at locations of rising sea level? Which means there are other factors at work other than the unvalidated model predictions that co2 driven warming is raising sea level?
Just goes to prove democracy institutionalises incompetence?

“how to talk to a climate change denier
Three Questions for the Denier:
Instead of citing an endless list of scientific studies, I propose a different approach. Pose just three questions.
“Putting aside for the moment the issue of the reality of climate change, will you acknowledge that a recent survey of 10,000 active climate scientists found that 98% affirmed the existence of anthropogenic climate change?”
“Will you acknowledge the existence of a recently released report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency with 195 member countries, which concludes with 95% confidence that the climate is changing, due to human activity.”
“How, then, do you deal with these acknowledged facts?”http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-to-Talk-to-a-Climate-C-by-Ernest-Partridge-Climate-Change_Climate-Change-Deniers_Climate-Crisis-140309-726.html
is that the best they got?

“Number of the Week: 17% and 11%. A study by the Breakthrough Institute reports that for 2012, the total energy output of German wind farms was 17% of nameplate capacity (the frequently touted number used by wind promoters). According to the report, the figures come from Germany’s BdeW utility consortium, which gathers data from all electric utilities. The links are in German. The output for solar for 2012 was 11% of nameplate capacity. ”
Germany has about 800 full sunhour equivalents in a year (slightly more in the south); a year has 8760 hours; so you will always end up around 10% for Solar in Germany.
(The 15 to 20% efficiency of PV is already priced into the given nameplate capacity)

jauntycyclist says:
March 10, 2014 at 1:20 am
the public reaction “i don’t have time to read all that but i did see a documentary by people who got a nobel prize so warming must be true”.
for society penetration an easily digestible documentary that granny can watch is worth 1000 papers

That wouldn’t be true if the media were doing its job.
The paucity of such documentaries is a strong indication (among many) that climate skepticism is not “well-funded.” If it were, there’d be a new documentary released every three months.

Can of Worms re-opened. The Boyce and Worms phytoplankton scare is getting an airing on the BBC website. I thought that it faded away in 2011, but it’s back with school packs and David Attenborough and an app. I guess the idea is to gradually lower small children into the Southern Pacific on the end of a piece of string. When you can’t see them any more, you use the app to measure the length of string and to send the result back to HQ. Let’s hope this is more accurate than there last attempt! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26483166

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy